Article: From Windows to Ubuntu and Back

[TZRick]

Hello everyone,

I am happy to say that my experience sthus far on Ubuntu has been somewhat challenging, but since I've kept the installation simple, I've really not had too many problems. Here is an article on someone who attempted a complete switch to Ubuntu, got burned, and had to move back to Windows. We've come a long way, but this article illustrates how far we still have to go:

From Windows to Ubuntu and back (http://www.appscout.com/2007/10/from_windows_to_ubuntu_and_bac_1.php)

[paul.matthijsse]

They seem not to understand that GNU/Linux is not the same platform as Windows. They try to re-create their Windows experience on Ubuntu in a 1-to-1 manner, instead of looking at what Ubuntu has to offer. As the saying goes: Linux chooses it's own friends...

I do not agree with your statement that Linux or Ubuntu still has a long way to go. People expecting that everything works right out of the box, including all the latest eye-candy, might indeed be better off with Windows or a Macintosh. Those willing to invest some time in an OS are - after that investment! - often way better off.

[tubasoldier]

Education is the key.

Unfortunately, Linux, and Ubuntu especially, is being touted as an amazing operating system that does exactly what Microsoft Windows does.

I would say this is somewhere between 75-80% true. Linux can not do some things windows does well. The only reason for that is the large userbase and the attraction of so many proprietary sofware vendors. CAD software and video editing are a few that come to mind.

There are however loads of things that Linux can do that are harder than hell or damn near impossible on Windows. Security and stability come to mind, as well as complete configuration. The command line itself would take years and years to copy to Windows. The command line is a very powerful way of accomplishing tasks, especially batch processes.

The point is that they are different operating systems with different ways of doing things. You can't simply tell someone that Linux 'is' Windows. It wont work. They are not binary compatible, no matter how much WINE has progressed.

Linux will get to the large respected userbase at some point. The only way to really do this is to encourage friends and family to browse the internet with it. As system admins begin seeing the Linux numbers creep up then vendors and hardware manufacturers will begin to take it seriously.

[RawMustard]

They seem not to understand that GNU/Linux is not the same platform as Windows. They try to re-create their Windows experience on Ubuntu in a 1-to-1 manner, instead of looking at what Ubuntu has to offer. As the saying goes: Linux chooses it's own friends...

I see that as a cop out really. They installed software they needed to get their work done and tried to use software to view their multi media, neither of which is suitably accounted for in Ubuntu or any other linux distro in the real world.

Sure there are alternatives that work wonders for some people, but all in all, the quality and availability of applications for Linux is just not there yet. Particularly in those areas.

People mold themselves into a usage routine with their computers. Trying not to disrupt that routine too much when changing OS or applications is what everyone strives for. If users have to jump through too many flaming hoops to get themselves setup, is it any wonder they'll go back to the devil they know?



I do not agree with your statement that Linux or Ubuntu still has a long way to go. People expecting that everything works right out of the box, including all the latest eye-candy, might indeed be better off with Windows or a Macintosh. Those willing to invest some time in an OS are - after that investment! - often way better off.

Huh? They brought a Linux computer with Ubuntu pre-installed and they shouldn't expect it to work out of the box?

That's a bit rich don't you think?

And you see there's the other problem. I've been using Ubuntu now since it was first released as my primary desktop os and you know what, I'm getting a bit sick and tired of having to do a clean install every six months to get updated applications. The amount of work to get the desktop and all applications configured to my needs is just too much work to do so often and upgrading Ubuntu to a newer version never bloody works. If you ask me, it's got a long, long way to go before more people will stick with it.

The investment in time and effort is shattered every time a new version comes out and if you stick with the old, you're left using apps that are lacking even more so. I don't feel way better off after so many years on Ubuntu.

People don't mind so much upgrading an app every so often and going through a bit of pain if something goes wrong(It's worked for Microsoft and still is), but to have to do it every six months to all your apps and your whole OS is just a huge drain and pain; and that's why feisty will stay on my computer now till the next one comes out after gutsy. I just couldn't be bothered going through the whole rigmarole of setting everything up again. It shouldn't be so hard(In an amount of work to do sense). I'm seriously considering going back to XP full time myself because of this upgrade ********. Maybe in another 2 years when XP is finally dead and no longer usable, Linux will have sorted out this upgrade - uphill treadmill, but until then, this is one area where Windows is miles ahead of Linux IMHO.

[armandh]

does Dell's hardware go to the low bidder?
does Dell's hardware have non open source drivers installed?
didn't the fools [linked article] think about trying the live disk?
these problems are in windows too. can you say winmodem or "easy cd" CDR drivers!
but if you think windows is ahead in the upgrade areas
I say upgrad a crap load of bad or corrupted code and drivers with windows and you will still get crap.
that is why the most common xp fix is a clean reload.

[TZRick]

I agree on many of the points and I do find myself really loving Linux many times over. Please understand the reason I posted: the Linux community has done a superb job thus far, considering the non-support from vendors, the cost of the merchandise ;) and the formidable market lead of Windows. However, there are areas which absolutely need to be worked on in order for Linux to be mass-adopted, and the sooner we recognize that, the sooner we will see results.

I'm just curious though, a better comparison probably would have been Linux versus the Mac: apples-to-apples in terms of security, closer to each other in application support than to Windows, etc. What do you think?

[Metalslave]

People expecting that everything works right out of the box, including all the latest eye-candy, might indeed be better off with Windows or a Macintosh.

What, you shouldn't expect Linux to work out of the box? Dare I point you in the direction of the Ubuntu catch phrase, ie "Ubuntu Just Works". :D

[TZRick]

I think the best clarification here is that Ubuntu works without tweaking if all one expects to do is web surfing and using OpenOffice. Anything else, including looking at DVDs, listening to MP3s, upgrading, requires some form of configuration. Obviously there are reasons for this, but again, the point is that most people tend to expect these things to work out-of-the-box.

[lancest]

People don't mind so much upgrading an app every so often and going through a bit of pain if something goes wrong(It's worked for Microsoft and still is), but to have to do it every six months to all your apps and your whole OS is just a huge drain and pain; and that's why feisty will stay on my computer now till the next one comes out after gutsy. I just couldn't be bothered going through the whole rigmarole of setting everything up again. It shouldn't be so hard(In an amount of work to do sense). I'm seriously considering going back to XP full time myself because of this upgrade ********. Maybe in another 2 years when XP is finally dead and no longer usable, Linux will have sorted out this upgrade - uphill treadmill, but until then, this is one area where Windows is miles ahead of Linux IMHO.[/QUOTE]

Actually I like this. To everyone his/her own but i like the "latest and greatest". I believe this 6 month development cycle (desktop, kernel dev etc) will eventually help to overwhelm MS. This is not a weakness but a great strength in my eyes.

[spitball123]

@RawMustard:



I'm seriously considering going back to XP full time myself because of this upgrade ********. Maybe in another 2 years when XP is finally dead and no longer usable, Linux will have sorted out this upgrade - uphill treadmill, but until then, this is one area where Windows is miles ahead of Linux IMHO.


I don't see how this is a problem with Linux. Ubuntu is just one of MANY GNU/Linux distributions. You know what a distribution is, right?

If you don't want a 6 month release cycle you really shouldn't be using Ubuntu. I'm sure there are quite a few distributions with rolling-release systems.

](*,)

[mdsmedia]

What, you shouldn't expect Linux to work out of the box? Dare I point you in the direction of the Ubuntu catch phrase, ie "Ubuntu Just Works". :DPlease point me in that direction. For me it "just worked" but I don't remember anyone using that as an Ubuntu catch phrase.

[mdsmedia]

People don't mind so much upgrading an app every so often and going through a bit of pain if something goes wrong(It's worked for Microsoft and still is), but to have to do it every six months to all your apps and your whole OS is just a huge drain and pain; and that's why feisty will stay on my computer now till the next one comes out after gutsy. I just couldn't be bothered going through the whole rigmarole of setting everything up again. It shouldn't be so hard(In an amount of work to do sense). I'm seriously considering going back to XP full time myself because of this upgrade ********. Maybe in another 2 years when XP is finally dead and no longer usable, Linux will have sorted out this upgrade - uphill treadmill, but until then, this is one area where Windows is miles ahead of Linux IMHO.I've got Dapper on my laptop and just upgraded my desktop to Gutsy. I don't NEED to upgrade from Dapper, AND it just works. I upgraded my desktop to Gutsy by choice. Maybe in the next month or so I'll upgrade my notebook. But I have the choice of upgrading or not.

You don't HAVE to upgrade. You've chosen to keep Feisty on your system.

You CAN choose another distribution which upgrades on a rolling basis, but you've chosen to use Ubuntu

And when you DO upgrade your OS it automatically updates ALL your apps, so the "whole rigmarole" of setting everything up again is FUD.

[RawMustard]

Like I said, you don't have to upgrade but if you don't you're either stuck with old lacking in features and bug fixed software or start compiling stuff yourself, neither of which is a great user experience in my opinion. And about rolling releases, that leaves Gentoo which is a pain and still breaks often if you don't know exactly what you're doing or Debian unstable, which again breaks very often unless you're a Linux guru.

And if you've upgraded from dapper to gutsy without any issues, you're either extremely and I emphasise extremely lucky, or you're telling me a little white lie.

Look I've been using Linux just on ten years now and I love it. The thing that's getting to me is the constant breakage due to upgrading. I'm talking about Linux as a desktop OS, on servers it's fine. Everyone I know that's tried it and gone back to windows has said the same thing, "it's great if you don't mind spending half your time configuring and fixing it every second day".

There really needs to be a better way to upgrade your system software without having to upgrade your entire OS every six months.

[buntunub]

The update process does not work for everyone. It worked OK for me, but im just one guy messing around with a couple home systems. If your talking about a whole Enterprise, then it MUST work for every PC on the system -- possibly thousands. Reconfiguration is not an option in that environment, and failed upgrades just wont cut muster. So, if your talking about that, then yes, Ubuntu has a long ways to go yet. If your talking about the home Desktop user, then your sadly mistaken because the average joe that uses Ubuntu, generally does not mind dickering about on command line; perhaps even loves it. Linux is NOT windows, and thankfully, never will be. It is a niche market, and probably always will be. What Linux brings to the table, Windows and Mac cant, and it is those things that make it an appealing option for the end users, even despite the many puzzles it can throw at you from time to time, which in fact make it an OS that you truly have ownership over. So, does Ubuntu work out of the box for each and every person that tries it? NO!.. Will it ever?.. NO!.. Does that matter? Nope, not at all. Why? Because GNU/Linux is a FREE alternative OS to Windows and MacOSX, which are proprietary and have restrictive licensing (and you can get phone support from Sam or Mary in India because M$ farms out their tech support so that they can pay below minimum wage salaries to underprivileged Countries!).

As far as which distro's use rolling releases, try Sabayon (done via Portage), PCLos, Debian, Fedora (I think).

[TZRick]

Linux is NOT windows, and thankfully, never will be. It is a niche market, and probably always will be.

I think right there is the point of contention. I want to see Linux take on Windows and I know many people who are switching to Linux are hoping the same. In fact, I don't think Dell would have chosen to supply Ubuntu as an option if it were not a viable path along the road to becoming mainsream...maybe not with the marketshare of Microsoft, but a viable, solid alternative. In fact isn't Ubuntu's slogan "Linux for Human Beings" (i.e. not only geeks)?

[wolfen69]

I see that as a cop out really. They installed software they needed to get their work done and tried to use software to view their multi media, neither of which is suitably accounted for in Ubuntu or any other linux distro in the real world.

Sure there are alternatives that work wonders for some people, but all in all, the quality and availability of applications for Linux is just not there yet. Particularly in those areas.

People mold themselves into a usage routine with their computers. Trying not to disrupt that routine too much when changing OS or applications is what everyone strives for. If users have to jump through too many flaming hoops to get themselves setup, is it any wonder they'll go back to the devil they know?



Huh? They brought a Linux computer with Ubuntu pre-installed and they shouldn't expect it to work out of the box?

That's a bit rich don't you think?

And you see there's the other problem. I've been using Ubuntu now since it was first released as my primary desktop os and you know what, I'm getting a bit sick and tired of having to do a clean install every six months to get updated applications. The amount of work to get the desktop and all applications configured to my needs is just too much work to do so often and upgrading Ubuntu to a newer version never bloody works. If you ask me, it's got a long, long way to go before more people will stick with it.

The investment in time and effort is shattered every time a new version comes out and if you stick with the old, you're left using apps that are lacking even more so. I don't feel way better off after so many years on Ubuntu.

People don't mind so much upgrading an app every so often and going through a bit of pain if something goes wrong(It's worked for Microsoft and still is), but to have to do it every six months to all your apps and your whole OS is just a huge drain and pain; and that's why feisty will stay on my computer now till the next one comes out after gutsy. I just couldn't be bothered going through the whole rigmarole of setting everything up again. It shouldn't be so hard(In an amount of work to do sense). I'm seriously considering going back to XP full time myself because of this upgrade ********. Maybe in another 2 years when XP is finally dead and no longer usable, Linux will have sorted out this upgrade - uphill treadmill, but until then, this is one area where Windows is miles ahead of Linux IMHO.

it never ceases to amaze me that a few people find it absolutely horrendous that they have to re-install every 6 months. how long does it take? 30, 40 hours? cmon, get a grip. even if it took 3 hours, (only takes me 1) how is that too much time? think about all the time you waste in the course of a month. if spending a couple hours is too much, then dont upgrade.

i re-install every month (sometimes twice monthly) whether it needs it or not. using a fresh installed OS always gives warm, fuzzy feeling.

[ChuckL]

I like Linux, I really do, but...

Linux is not ready for prime time and it never will be as long as it is so inconsistent in its design, distribution, and operation. I realize there are those who believe that those inconsistencies or differences are really cool and are what makes Linux great, but the reality is that the vast majority of computer users are or would disagree.

While Linux can and is deployed on many servers, it simply cannot compete for the corporate desktop market. Command line interfaces may be ok for system admins but 90% of computer users do not run servers and are not system admins. They use computers running a graphical desktop to get their work done and unless it is brain-dead simple to operate they won't use it.

Upgrading 1000s of desktops every six months, especially when there are always, always, always issues that crop up is simply not feasible. Why the lone Linux groupie may not find it problematic to upgrade or even do a clean reinstall every six months or so, that isn't going to happen in the majority of cases. The majority of home users are also in this same class. They don't understand computers, Don't know what an OS is, and furthermore, don't care to know. They simply want to cruise the web, send and receive email, play games, listen to music, or watch a video.

I find it curious that I never hear those who beat the drum so strongly for Linux seldom state what they use their computer for. I hear love for the command line, security, and stability as major strengths over MS, but never what real applications they use that are better, faster, easier than what can be found on a MS desktop.

Those who believe that Linux will somehow, someday cause the MS juggernaut to fail and that one day the world will wake up to Linux on a vast majority of computers around the world, are merely fooling themselves. It simply cannot happen; the hurdles to overcome are far too great.

Again, I do like Linux. But even for someone who has been in the OS and software development arena for far too many years and understands technology extremely well, I find Linux challenging and more often than not, frustrating. I for one wish that Linux could become more standardized, easier to use and implement, and better documented. Oh well, maybe someday...???

[Coldkill]

0__o

[conehead77]

I like Linux, I really do, but...

Linux is not ready for prime time and it never will be as long as it is so inconsistent in its design, distribution, and operation. I realize there are those who believe that those inconsistencies or differences are really cool and are what makes Linux great, but the reality is that the vast majority of computer users are or would disagree.
About what inconsistent things exactly do you talk?


While Linux can and is deployed on many servers, it simply cannot compete for the corporate desktop market. Command line interfaces may be ok for system admins but 90% of computer users do not run servers and are not system admins. They use computers running a graphical desktop to get their work done and unless it is brain-dead simple to operate they won't use it.
Once the OS is set up, you dont really need to use the command line. People use it because its faster once you know what you are doing. But again, you dont need to use the command line after your OS runs.


Upgrading 1000s of desktops every six months, especially when there are always, always, always issues that crop up is simply not feasible.
I agree, for the average user only LTS versions should be advertised.


I find it curious that I never hear those who beat the drum so strongly for Linux seldom state what they use their computer for. I hear love for the command line, security, and stability as major strengths over MS, but never what real applications they use that are better, faster, easier than what can be found on a MS desktop.
Most of the open source software can run on Windows too, so i cant say i use Linux because of certain applications.
I use Firefox, Eclipse, Amarok, Deluge, OO for exporting documents in pdf, the standard cd burning program.
All of these apps are free, easy to install (no verification, etc.) and fit my needs. Of course you can use Firefox in windows too, so it isnt a "killer application".
Packet management is the killer application for me. Its so easy to install (and search for) programs it isnt even funny! For example i searched for a Windows version of winrar in the internet. I downloaded, installed and got a 30 day trial. After that, it reminded me to register/purchase the full version, whatever. Not once, but every time i unrared a file. I didnt search for alternatives because i felt it was a waste of a time to search again for maybe the right unrar program.
In Ubuntu, you dont even have to install the unrar program, its built in! The small things make the difference!


Those who believe that Linux will somehow, someday cause the MS juggernaut to fail and that one day the world will wake up to Linux on a vast majority of computers around the world, are merely fooling themselves. It simply cannot happen; the hurdles to overcome are far too great.
I agree, but thats not a reason to not use Linux ;)


I for one wish that Linux could become more standardized, easier to use and implement, and better documented. Oh well, maybe someday...???
What do you mean with "standardized"? I hope you dont mean Windows as a standard ;) Please explain.
Ubuntu isnt hard to use, only hard to implement and even that only for a minority of people.
For example, 2 of friends at university installed Ubuntu on their laptops (Windows only user before) because they wanted sthg to play around with (they are computer science students). Unfortunately for them, everything worked out of the box :lolflag:
And they dont even know about this forum, so you wont see their good experiences here :)
I like the wiki very much and find it easy to use and filled with many good information. I cant see me needing more documentation than this. Maybe the things you were looking for werent in the wiki yet? You can even call Canonical for support: http://www.ubuntu.com/support
Its still cheaper than buy other big OSs.

I hope i could bring some clarification from my point of view and maybe even help you with your Ubuntu experience.

EDIT: This post is longer than i expected :)

[JustifY]

The thing that won't get Linux into full mainstream is the amount of work it takes to get everything started. There's a learning curve, and knowing people, people don't like learning new stuff. They expect things to be perfect. They won't work for it. That, and the fresh install for updates every few months.


Of course, I'm speaking Hippocratic-ly, as I'm fed up with Wine. The OS is amazing, but I'm primarily a gamer, and I still don't know what to do to install my games on there. These links people keep giving me aren't noob-friendly directions, even if I ask for noob-friendly directions (for Wine). I still have it partitioned, as I love it, but I can't game on it! Ughhhhhhh if only. Then it would be perfect. Oh, and my mouse buttons aren't programmable on Wine, so I can't do on-the-fly dpi changes or use the back/forward buttons or application switcher. I could be just missing how to program the buttons, but it worked out of the box for Vista..so I doubt it'll work on Ubuntu at all.

[TZRick]

it never ceases to amaze me that a few people find it absolutely horrendous that they have to re-install every 6 months. how long does it take? 30, 40 hours? cmon, get a grip. even if it took 3 hours, (only takes me 1) how is that too much time? think about all the time you waste in the course of a month. if spending a couple hours is too much, then dont upgrade.

i re-install every month (sometimes twice monthly) whether it needs it or not. using a fresh installed OS always gives warm, fuzzy feeling.

Every 6 months??? Actually, when you consider a simple home environment (no NAS, auto backups, etc), you have to factor in the amount of time it takes to backup documents, etc. Then, once the re-install is done, restoring the documents, restoring user preferences (background, themes, etc), reinstalling programs, etc...you're looking at more like 4-6 hours...and that, my friend, is what I don't have...not to mention the worry as to whether or not the new version will work with existing hardware. It's even worse if you run into a snag and have to end up re-installing the old operating system...lots of time wasted and nothing to show for it.

[TZRick]

I find it curious that I never hear those who beat the drum so strongly for Linux seldom state what they use their computer for. I hear love for the command line, security, and stability as major strengths over MS, but never what real applications they use that are better, faster, easier than what can be found on a MS desktop.

I use Linux as the only OS on my main workstation (also media center) at home. We would look at DVD's (Dolby Digital sound), watch cable TV (no DVR), heavy surfing of the Internet, perform very light document editing, etc. All of this functionality on a Pentium III 850 Mhz PC with 384MB of RAM. If it weren't for Ubuntu (tried SuSE), I would probably have spent $$ on a new system. This system does run fast or even faster and more stable than both my Windows XP machines (which have 1800+ Athlon and 1.6Ghz Centrino processors). Concerning security, I'm hardly concerned for my Linux box. For my XP machines, I'm very fidgety, though I've had no infections in 6 years. I recently changed my soundcard on my Linux box, and unlike a Windows box, no drivers had to be installed as Linux booted, recognized and configured everything seamlessly.


Again, I do like Linux. But even for someone who has been in the OS and software development arena for far too many years and understands technology extremely well, I find Linux challenging and more often than not, frustrating. I for one wish that Linux could become more standardized, easier to use and implement, and better documented. Oh well, maybe someday...???

Those points I do agree on.

[cogadh]

Complaining about Windows apps not working!? WINE is beta software! You cannot expect a beta implementation of the Windows API that was developed using Microsoft's ****-poor API documentation to work perfectly. Get over it.

Compiz Fusion didn't work. Once again, it is beta software, it is not going to work perfectly. If you want your system to work perfectly, then stay away from stuff like that. The first thing I did after the Gutsy upgrade was turn off CF, its a waste of resources and serves absolutely no functional purpose anyway.

Upgrades only really go poorly if you have customized your system in unusual ways, such as using non-standard repositories. If people actually read the upgrade instructions, which tell you to undo all that stuff before you upgrade, they wouldn't have as many problems. I ran the upgrade no less than 4 different times. The only one that was hosed up was the one that had all kinds of self-compiled software, non-standard repositories (Medibuntu, Wine, Last.FM, a few others) and locally installed .DEB packages. The other three that only used official repositories and software or were cleaned up before the upgrade worked perfectly.

As has been said many times already LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS. Don't expect it to be Windows, it never will be. Instead of focusing on "Windows does this, but Linux doesn't", take a little time to understand that most of the time, there is a really good reason why that is and the way Linux does it is, more often than not, better than the way Windows does it.

Honestly, I am happy to see people like that leave the Linux community. They came here with a bias towards Windows already and would always constantly judge Linux based on that. Approaching Linux in that manner will always lead to disappointment, frustration and negative statements like the article in the OP.

[ajdm326]

Wow! I could not believe what I was reading. I dual boot xp & ununtu, but it's been about 4 months since I went to xp. I sure don't don't miss it. That's before windows forced "secret updates" on everyones machine.

[lyndaj70]

HOkay...

I've been reading through this...

I decided to try Linux about 10 years ago, after hearing the buzz around it online. I was getting tired of paying $$$ every time I wanted a new app. Burning proggie? $100, Works program? $75, Desktop Publishing? $50. Games? $50, $30, $20, etc., etc. My kids use my system, and it seemed as if I was wiping and reinstalling every couple weeks. I was tired of spending most of my paychecks on computer apps (I'm a geek, can't help it) and tired of reinstalling, and tired of all the viruses causing me to reinstall some more!

Let me tell you, I was not happy when I realized that my modem and sound card were proprietary and would not work under Linux. I put Windows back until I could replace the items. Why? Why not just give up? My kids LOVED it! Even without sound, they loved the games. AND I DIDN'T HAVE TO REINSTALL ONCE!

So I replaced the offending items, and dual-booted. Now, I knew NOTHING about Linux except a few blurbs I read online.... NOTHING other than what I found in the book that came with the distro (SuSE 6.4 personal). I was a total newbie when I started, so I came in and learned totally from scratch without a soul nearby to help me!

My kids at times could just LOOK at a Windows install and crash the sucker (I'm not kidding), but NOT ONCE in 10 years have they managed to crash a Linux install, and I have tried quite a few distros.

No, Linux is not Windows. It never will be. But if it's so horrible why is it that with every new Windows version I see more and more Unix(linux) features? If it's that bad, why is Windows starting to copy it?

I make money working on Windows. I have a vested stake in seeing that operating system go on and on in the home user market. But I get so pissed off having to tell people that their old systems can't be upgraded to "the new Windows", and I am looking forward to Linux taking off the the point where I can give them a viable option, one they wont' reject outright.

No, Linux is not perfect. But Neither is Windows. If it were, I'd be out of a job. But if Linux can take on my kids, and survive my constant tinkering without "requiring" a reinstall, then there has to be something to it. Cause that is something that Windows has NEVER been able to accomplish in this household!

And upon reading that article, sounds like it worked when they got it, and they broke it trying to get it to run "better" if you ask me... Sometimes, especially with developing technology, it's best to leave well enough alone....

[mivo]

i re-install every month (sometimes twice monthly) whether it needs it or not. using a fresh installed OS always gives warm, fuzzy feeling.

Well, you are either relatively young or have a lot of spare time available to you and nothing else to do -- or both. :)

Most people who use a desktop use it as a tool. It's like a car to them: it works for the most part, sometimes needs an update, and every once in a great while something needs to get fixed. There are people who spend every spare minute tweaking their vehicle, but if that was required and/or you had to bring your car to the garage every six months for several days, fewer people would own a car.

It is not reasonable for an end-user to have to reinstall the OS every six months (let alone every month) or spend several days in the command line trying to fix their desktop. 7.10 was a horrible experience for me, and I did spend quite a bit of time with it (and I am not even an average end-user but have owned computers for 23 years). There is no way my mother, who is in her sixties and uses a Windows PC could or even would want to deal with that, and the same applies to most people I know or work with.

Sure, if the system works, it is all fine -- anyone can use it, it's more stable and secure, very snappy and offers wonderful productivity tools. But upgrading a Linux system is not a cakewalk, nor is trying to get some newer hardware to work. Upgrading Windows is not trivial either, but people do that every three to four years, and usually they buy a new computer bundled with the latest Windows version. They don't do that every few months. Application updares stopped for Feisty the day Gutsy came out, even for core programs like Pidgin. (Why is it that Fedora 7, also half a year old, offers updates for OpenOffice 2.3?)

Ubuntu did a lot for Linux awareness, but releasing a rushed version like Gutsy with a HUGE number of unresolved bug tickets only to stick to a schedule caused some harm. Even the stickies here recommend to completely reinstall Gutsy from scratch. And considering that the default installer does not even hint at the advantage of a separate /home partition, that experience was probably fatal enough for some people to go back to Windows or look for another distro. Some of the Windows-returnees will never take a second look at Linux.

I only use Linux, by the way. My old machine and a backup box run with Ubuntu, though the older desktop freezes with Gutsy and is still on 7.04). My brand-new desktop (a relatively high end machine) does not even boot with Gutsy. It works wonderfully with Fedora 8 and OpenSuSE. Ubuntu is very hyped, and while I love many of its aspects, the upgrading mechanism of the distro is unstable and immature, and Gutsy feels very "beta" to me.

A friend asked me yesterday which Live CD I recommend to her. Prior to Gutsy I would have told her to get the Ubuntu Live CD. But now I suggested the Live CD of the Fedora 8 release candidate, because I felt it is less likely to give her a bad first impression. You only have one try with people who are casually interested. It is telling that I am more comfortable recommending a release candidate of a distro over the final version of another distro.

[cogadh]

I'm sure this has been mentioned already in this thread, but you don't have to re-install or upgrade Ubuntu every six months. You never have to upgrade Ubuntu. It is your choice to do that, not a requirement at all. If your version of Ubuntu already works fine for you and a new version is released, then don't upgrade, its that simple.

Do you rush to install a new version of Windows when it is released? In my experience, that is an incredibly stupid thing to do, since more often than not, the initial release of an OS is full of bugs that aren't going to be addressed until later with either patches or a service pack. Why would anyone expect Ubuntu to be any different or somehow immune to these kinds of problems?

Not to mention, some instability is really the price you pay for being on the bleeding edge with a new OS. I only upgrade my Ubuntu system because I do enjoy the challenge involved in problem solving and troubleshooting issues on a new system, but I'm masochistic that way. If I were looking for a Linux system that was completely stable and static, I never would have upgraded from Dapper to Feisty, let alone to Gutsy.

[TZRick]

I find the best summary of both sides with lyndaj70 and mivo and I agree with many points posted by both.

As for cogadh, I think you should re-read mivo's article concerning updates. That portion was a good point against Ubuntu (but not Linux on the whole). Also, your argument for WINE being beta, well, how long has it been in beta? Besides, with emulation software, it is understood that some things won't work well, so there is no defense needed.

All-in-all, I relate best to lyndaj70's post. I also was in a situation where I didn't want to pay hundreds of dollars for software (others think it is okay to steal, but I do not) and was absolutely fed-up of the absolutely solid, never-crashing Windows Me. I was actually about to re-install once again, and just decided to try Linux...and here I am! Initially, I had some issues with hardware, but as time went on, things began improving. Like I said, Linux still has some ways to go, but I would really like to see it compete with Windows. I'm also a Mac fan, but please, let's be real about the price here!

I think, in the end, just like in the AMD-Intel wars, competition will improve things greatly for the end-users (and it already has...look at the improvements to Windows on the server side...forced by Linux of course) and I hope that Linux continues increasing in momentum and adoption.

[inversekinetix]

LOL watching some linux users in some of these threads is like watching cultists. Give it a rest for pete's sake. Windows is carp this that and the other, gotta update ubuntu every 6 months. Who cares, both are equally capable if properly configured, my XP is faster than my ubuntu, so what. My ubuntu has problems that I can't get help fixing without some pompous goon telling me to RTFM. Whats the other one i hear all the time, oooo linux is so secure, you're not logged in as root, so what, I've been logging in as root for on windows for years and have never had a security breech nor need to reinstall other than hardware failure.

If anything this mac-esque cliquiness is whats going to stop me using ubuntu.